If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

It's a better explanation than the current mainstream "theory," which has so many significant failed predictions that, quite frankly, it's embarrassing that people still cling to it. These people aren't scientists, but dogmatists; they follow their emotional preferences, not the rational evidence.

For the record, this is nothing new in science, as anyone who's followed its history will know. Thankfully the history of science also tells us another thing: Dogmatists eventually die off and are replaced with younger, less-indoctrinated minds more open to following the evidence. We should see that trend continue in biology, and within 2030 years or so, Darwinian evolution will be laughed at as the stupidest, most ignorant idea any human being's ever thought up.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

I can completly agree with that...I must have just misread what you had written. IMPO there is nothing wrong with evolution as long as you realize that it doesn't explain where life came from to begin with...and recognize to that there is no evidence for evolution of species to species evolution. Wasn't it JP that also stated that Christianity does not preclude the possiblity of life on other planets?

There may be evidence of speciation, it simply depends on how one defines what qualifies as a different species. Believe it or not, even a question as fundamental as "what is a species" has no concrete answer. There are definitions of species which would qualify the differing human races as differing species.

Here's the thing, though: It's all irrelevant to the heart of the debate. The heart of the debate is three issues:

No definition of species addresses any of those questions, thus, speciation is irrelevant. If you see someone trying to use speciation to prove anything in this debate, that person is either ignorant of what's being debated or, even worse, is trying to fool you by lying for Darwin.

So, the multicellularity which evolved was actually a lineage of yest cells which had lost the ability to separate from their mother cell, hence the two unicellular lifeforms "sticking" together and forming pseudo-multicellularity. Rather than a single, multicellular lifeform, as they want you to think, it's actually two unicellular lifeforms. Yawn.

Mutations can degrade. Mutations can destroy. No one's ever doubted that. What is in doubt is whether mutations can "build up," that is engineer, producing complex new traits. That's what they must show the ability to do if they hope to claim responsibility for the brilliance of the biological world.

That NY times headline is hilariously sensationalist, but nothing from this blog post argues against the basics of the paper. The research team selected for yeast that clustered by centrifuging, separating, and breeding them again. This is pretty basic example of multicellular formation through selection. I have no idea why the fitness level of an organism matters in a lab setting. This is not really likely in vivo, but neither is multicellular evolution in that small of a time frame. The genetics aren't important, either, as multicellularity spawns out of parental cellular clones.

If I'm understanding your post correctly you seem to imply that evolution only breaks down complex systems. This is false and there is a plethora of molecular biology research to show otherwise. Here is a better paper on evolution that does analyze the genetics and does show that the process of selection works through creating new products and duplication.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

If I'm understanding your post correctly you seem to imply that evolution only breaks down complex systems. This is false and there is a plethora of molecular biology research to show otherwise. Here is a better paper on evolution that does analyze the genetics and does show that the process of selection works through creating new products and duplication.

I'm not merely implying what you claimed, I'm outright stating that the research data shows Darwinian evolution "working" by breaking down preexisting systems, which, in extremely rare situations, can prove beneficial. Antibiotic resistance is probably the most well-known example of this.

In fact, there's a peer-reviewed paper released less than 24 hours ago which covers this very subject:

It's amazing how this "plethora" of evidence always seems to come crumbling down once confronted with skepticism.

I have no problem admitting that random mutation has extremely limited power. It can do some things. The problem is, Darwinists claim it engineered the entire biological world, starting from life's genesis. That conclusion does not follow from the evidence, and I believe it's a faith-based quasi-religious position.

The researcher's evolution was driven by their own intelligence, with constant intervention with the intent of directing the results of their experiment towards their desired goal. This is in no way tantamount to the blind watchmaker thesis that's being challenged by me, and by others.

As Behe's article points out:

In other words:

• They deleted an enzyme that previous work showed could likely be replaced.

• They added the necessary nutrient histidine because previous work showed that mutations conferring an ability to make tryptophan destroyed the ability to make histidine.

• The added histidine would have shut off production of the protein, so they removed the genetic control element to keep it in production.

• Later, once they found mutations to produce tryptophan, they removed histidine from the medium to encourage the production of mutations restoring histidine synthesis.

Roll the ball to the left to avoid one obstacle, roll it backward to avoid another, turn the maze over to drop the ball into the next corridor. . . . Needless to say, this ain't how unaided nature works -- unless nature is guiding events toward a goal.

Directed evolution, as the researchers performed, is tantamount to watchmaker evolution, not blind watchmaker evolution. Anyone who uses this research as evidence for the latter is either a liar or a fool.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

Please tell me what the scientific method is and how creationism follows it.

My thoughts are all over this thread; I wont waste time or effort repeating them.

I will say this much: I don't believe either Biblical creationism or Darwinian evolution are true. Both are archaic beliefs based on outdated data, and the supporters of both are motivated by things other than science. Biblical creationists are at least honest about this. I can't say the same for Darwinists, sadly.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

My thoughts are all over this thread; I wont waste time or effort repeating them.

I will say this much: I don't believe either Biblical creationism or Darwinian evolution are true. Both are archaic beliefs based on outdated data, and the supporters of both are motivated by things other than science. Biblical creationists are at least honest about this. I can't say the same for Darwinists, sadly.

That is why they call it evolution a theory, regardless, the whole point of the debate was to show Creationism is not a science.